Can You Prove You've Been Framed? The Case of the Crack in the Wallet

[LightbulbSun]

This question arose from an episode of Cops tonight. The guy was caught with a bag of crack in his wallet, and when questioned about it he says he thinks he had been set up. Now saying this were actually the case, someone slipping a bag of crack into his wallet to set him up, how would they be able to prove this? Could they test for fingerprints on the bag?

 

[wildman]

He is out of luck. If it was just in his car, then maybe. But in his wallet is quite a stretch. Not jury is going to fall for that one.

 

[LightbulbSun]

He is out of luck. If it was just in his car, then maybe. But in his wallet is quite a stretch. Not jury is going to fall for that one.

But what I'm asking is could they test his claim by testing for fingerprints on the bag of crack?

 

[humanino]

Probably these chemical leave traces in your body. I guess, as a first step, he could prove he does not use it for himself. That would not put him out of selling it though.

 

[Leah]

It's obvious...the guy is guilty and he's lying.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

It's obvious...the guy is guilty and he's lying.

In most cases that's probably the case but many druggies would not hesitate to ditch their drugs on a friend if they believed they were about to get stopped by the cops.

 

[brewnog]

They could test for fingerprints on the bag and wallet.

 

[Moonbear]

They could test for fingerprints on the bag and wallet.

If they found his fingerprints, that would clearly show he was lying and had touched the bag, so it wasn't someone else putting it there. But, if they don't find any prints on it, that doesn't necessarily mean he was framed...he could have been wearing gloves or the prints just got smudged beyond identification from rubbing around in the wallet. I suppose only if they found the same prints on the wallet as on the bag inside and none of his on the bag, it might give some credence to the claim. Wouldn't necessarily prove he'd been framed, but might raise enough doubt in court to get him acquitted. Afterall, it's not like you're going to get the dealer to testify as a witness of who bought the drugs from him. :uhh: Of course, if you're really trying to frame someone, it's unlikely you'd do it without gloves on.

 

[humanino]

If the guy has so little money that he can barely afford to eat, he probably does not deal drugs.

 

[Hydroshock]

There's also the fact that they probably couldn't lift fingerprints off those items.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

There are claims that reliable lie detectors are coming.

 

[Moonbear]

There's also the fact that they probably couldn't lift fingerprints off those items.

They could probably get them off a plastic bag, but not so sure about the wallet once it was slipped into his pocket where the fabric of his pants probably rubbed any good fingerprints off.

As the saying goes, "Possession is 9/10 of the law." Sometimes that's good, sometimes that's bad.

 

[LightbulbSun]

Ok, so I was correct in thinking they could get fingerprints off the bag. My stepdad told me they couldn't.

So pretty much if this guy was framed completely he'd be out of luck? That really sucks.

 

[K.J.Healey]

But isn't it partially his responsibility to be conscious of what he is carrying on his body at all times?

I'm not saying that its a REASONABLE expectation, but rather that it is a legal one.